The execution of Saddam was always bound to be an amoral farce. How could it be otherwise, under the tender ministrations of the president who taunted Karla Faye Tucker to the grave?

U.S. military deaths in Iraq have reached 3,000. For what? Saddam is dead. George W. Bush has his "mememto," Saddam's pistol, which he keeps in the White house study. Saddam's dead and so are 3,000 American troops. Can we bring the rest home now? How much longer will this charade continue, now that it's arch-villain has been disposed of? To what end? Oh, I forgot -- it's about democracy. How about if we just call it "mission accomplished' and get the hell out of there?

Posted January 3, 2007 9:01 AM by Madison Guy

Already gone to bed, or already passed out drunk? Which do you think is more likely?

===========

As may be:

What did Saddam do that got him executed?

Back in 1982, before Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand and sold him nerve gas, something happened in the town of Dujail:

1) There was an assassination attempt against Saddam in 1982.

2) Immediately after Saddam sent his forces into the town.

3) Thousands were arrested.

4) 148 were killed.

5) Some were tortured and raped.

6) The town's groves were destroyed.

7) The inhabitants of the town were displaced.

Now compare with Bush. In 1993 something happened in Kuwait:

1) In 1993 there was an assassination attempt against George H. W. Bush.

2) Ten years later George W. Bush sent his forces into Iraq. ("After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.")

3) Thousands were arrested.

4) Around 600,000 have been killed.

5) Some were tortured and raped.

6) Many towns' groves have been destroyed.

7) Hundreds of thousands are displaced.

That isn't to say that Saddam wasn't a very bad man, but his major crimes (gassing the Kurds, for example) weren't what he was executed for.

Posted January 3, 2007 9:13 AM by James D. Macdonald

And that is what pisses me off, James. The bastard commited real crimes that deserved punishment, including ecological genocide; and this... this...this...ridiculous foolishness...this...imbecile blunder...has made that murderous SOB into a some kind of a resistance hero.
I keep thinking of Talleyrand's famous cynicism: this is worse than a crime, it's a blunder. Is there anything at all these people do well besides funneling cash to various and sundry favored pockets?

Posted January 3, 2007 9:23 AM by Emma

Without the moral high-ground, it was even more important that the execution of Saddam Hussein be carried out in a professional manner. However thin the legal pretense, the message that was intended was that Hussein's behavior was unacceptable and must be punished. The reason that the dignity of the prisoner should be preserved is not for the prisoner's sake. It is so that the actions of the state are clearly contrasted with the actions of the condemned.

Execution, if carried out in public, or if captured on a cel phone camera, is dramatically visual. Hussein's execution was visually similar to the various videos that terrorists have sent over the years documenting their "execution" of hostages. It was murder when they did it. The video makes it clear that it was murder when we did it, also.

Oh, and did anybody else keep on getting flashbacks to _The Shadow of the Torturer_ with derisive commentary by Severian?

Posted January 3, 2007 9:30 AM by Lydia Nickerson

Just a side-note: in households (like mine) where wake-up time is before 6 a.m., staying up till 10 p.m. is something of a luxury -- that's why I miss a lot of good shows on PBS. As for Shrub, maybe he had to get up early to feed the cows or something (yeah, right).

Posted January 3, 2007 9:35 AM by Faren Miller

it gets worse

and we're going to keep "sacrificing" soldiers until people like this fix the civil war?

Posted January 3, 2007 9:53 AM by julia

Indeed. The crowd of witnesses, executioners, and bystanders chanting "Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!" when Muqtada al Sadr (head of the Mehdi Army) is the person against whom this planned "surge" is aimed, makes it clear that Bush has once again blundered.

If there's anything you can predict about Bush's actions, it's that they'll be stupid and counterproductive. Whatever he announces this coming week, you can be sure of those two things: Stupid. And counter-productive.

But, now, did Saddam in fact try to kill his dad?

There's some doubt, based on the 2004 report of the Iraq Survey Group (made with access to Saddam, to his closest advisers, and to Iraq records). As stated here (and apologies for the length of the quote):

But a closer look at the 11-year-old plot, particularly in light of the findings by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), the special team of experts that spent 15 months investigating Baghdad's WMD programs, that they were all dismantled in 1991, shortly after the end of the Gulf War, may now be warranted, especially if Bush is still laboring under the impression that Saddam ''tried to kill (his) dad''.

While the ISG's 960-page report, known as the Duelfer Report, does not address the assassination attempt, its chronology and depiction of Hussein's worldview -- adduced through lengthy interviews by one Arabic-speaking FBI investigator and other interviews of Saddam's closest advisers -- make the notion that the Iraqi dictator tried to kill Bush all the more implausible.

For one thing, Saddam, according to the report, was convinced that the CIA had thoroughly penetrated his regime and thus would know not only that he had dismantled his WMD (which the CIA apparently did not), but also would know about his plans for important intelligence operations. Under those circumstances, it is hard to understand why he would then order an assassination attempt on the former U.S. president.

Even more interesting, according to the report, was Saddam's ''complicated'' view of the U.S. While he derived ''prestige'' from being an enemy of the U.S., he also considered it to be ''equally prestigious for him to be an ally of the United States -- and regular entreaties were made during the last decade to explore this alternative''.

Indeed, beginning already in 1991, according to the report, ''very senior Iraqis close to the President made proposals through intermediaries for dialogue with Washington.''

''Baghdad offered flexibility on many issues, including offers to assist in the Israel- Palestine conflict. Moreover, in informal discussions, senior officials allowed that, if Iraq had a security relationship with the United States, it might be inclined to dispense with WMD programs and/or ambitions,'' it added.

The report even concluded that Iraq was willing to be Washington's ''best friend in the region bar none''.

The fact that the U.S., under Bush Sr. and Clinton, did not show interest was apparently a source of bewilderment to the Iraqi leader, according to the Duelfer report.

If Saddam had tried to kill the ex-president, he probably would not have been bewildered by Washington's lack of interest, but, by all accounts, he was.

''From the report, Saddam seems to be not a madman, but someone who would understand very well the consequences of an assassination'', notes Gregory Thielmann, a former senior State Department analyst who specialized in Iraq's WMD programs

''If his top priority was getting the (UN economic) sanctions lifted (as indicated by the report), then it doesn't follow that he would try to kill the president of the United States,'' added Thielmann.

You can read the entire Duelfer Report here, to see if that was a fair summary. The most relevant sections are Regime Strategic Intent and Regime Strategic Intent Annexes.

The article referenced above makes one other interesting point: of the eleven Iraqis and three Kuwaitis who were tried and convicted for the assasination attempt against Bush senior, only one said that Bush was the target, and he recanted his confession during the trial, claiming that it was obtained under torture.

So it appears possible that "he tried to kill my dad" wasn't true either.

Posted January 3, 2007 10:00 AM by James D. Macdonald

Mad King George is upset that some video proves he's walking around wearing no clothes.

Posted January 3, 2007 10:16 AM by Greg London

This WAS supposed to be the "one thing" that Bush got right. We botched the occupation, They didn't welcome us as heroes. They didn't turn to democracy. Afghanistan is falling apart. Everything Bush has done in every single setting is complete and utter crap.

The execution of Saddam was going to be the one grand feather in Bush's cap.

And once again, he f-ed up even that. Bush's presidency will go down in history as such:

a theft wrapped in a blunder inside an arrogance.

Posted January 3, 2007 10:23 AM by Greg London

Americablog has an interesting post today that argues that there are two videos, and the second one is of professional quality, not something from a cellphone.

Posted January 3, 2007 10:41 AM by David Dvorkin

I have heard that Shrub 'goes to bed' around 8:30 or 9pm, and gets up about 6 or so. Whether he's actually asleep at 9 is a whole 'nother question, but it appears that he gets his full eight hours a day, plus whatever in naps. If any part of him is fatigued, it's his brain, which isn't used to doing anything elective. [/snark]

Posted January 3, 2007 10:43 AM by P J Evans

Someone please give me good evidence that Bush is not an agent of the Iranian Government. Please? I don't want to be in tinfoil-hat mode.

Posted January 3, 2007 10:51 AM by BSD

I don't really want to say something glib about the US having one chance to do something right but dropping the ball yet again, but was there ever any reason to believe that this wouldn't end this way?

In the past few weeks I've seen a couple of things that lead me to the conclusion that the qualities of this execution are the governmental mirror of corporate culture driven as it is by power point slides and “smart” goals. There are no handy units by which the trial or the execution can be measured other than guilty/innocent and alive/dead. So he’s guilty and dead. Goals met. Annual bonus in the bag.

It’s not like it would have been difficult to try him for crimes against humanity for which he was certainly guilty, find him guilty in a trial with which no reasonable man could find fault, and execute him in a way that said, “There are crimes so barbaric for which society must reserve its ultimate punishment and this man is guilty of those crimes.” But that would look really verbose on the goals document. Guilty? Check. Dead? Check. More thought probably went into picking the fonts and the background for the slide deck.

It is as if we looked at the story where the Soviet shoe factory cranks out 80,000 pairs of women’s size four shoes because 80,000 pairs of shoes is their goal and they didn't have enough leather for anything else and said, "Now that's the way to run a culture!"

Posted January 3, 2007 10:53 AM by Avery

He fell asleep reading Camus, natch.

Posted January 3, 2007 11:03 AM by Andy Vance

BSD... Someone please give me good evidence that Bush is not an agent of the Iranian Government.

I think he really works for K.A.O.S.

Posted January 3, 2007 11:10 AM by Serge

I think he really works for K.A.O.S.

Hence the bumbling! It's all becoming clear.

Posted January 3, 2007 11:29 AM by Jon Sobel

Stochastic Logic. That's the title of the book about the Bush Administration.

Posted January 3, 2007 11:32 AM by Xopher

A semi-random collection of semi-random thoughts in honor of our semi-president:

1) He was in bed, bemoaning for the umpteenth time the fact that his presidency doesn't have the "reset" button that his life used to have.

2) Regarding the comments about the charges he was tried for, I read something recently (I thought it was in the sidelights, actually, but maybe I'm mistaken) that suggested he was tried on those charges because investigation of events subsequent to that period would be ... dicey. Apparently many of the crimes after that point would be/could be cast in a light that we helped the crimes happen, so the decision to charge him on the earlier crimes was to "protect" the country and the administration.

3) I teach high school. Some of my students have been saying one of the videos shows the hanging itself was botched -- that Hussein's head was nearly ripped off and his body was hanging by a scrap of flesh. Is this true?

4) As our hostess says, George III doesn't care. He wants what he wants -- I don't think he's clear himself on what it is. But until he finds it and decides he's happy and satisfied, we aren't going anywhere.

5) General rant: When the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared that gay marriage could not be disallowed under the existing Mass Constitution, opponents complained about "liberal judges legislating from the bench."
When the legislature recently recessed without addressing a citizen petition to change the constitution to "pro-descrimination" (I love governor elect Deval) and the Supreme Court declar4ed that unconstitutional and demanded they add the issue back to the agenda for the new legislature opponents speak of "the Supreme Court that hears the people." And yet, it's the same court! As always, it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

Posted January 3, 2007 11:35 AM by Pedantic Peasant

More troops now will only work if you're willing to push the big reset button. We already called off a search for two kidnapped troops because it upset somebody in al-Sadr's camp. I know what I would have said to those orders had I been the commander on the ground. They could have started the court martial right after I finished my search, before that I would still be working on adding charges.

Without taking the huge political hit of telling the Iraqis, "Hey, you know those three elections you had. Well, we weren't serious about that transfer of power, psych! Do over!" It's not going to work.

"Okay, everybody. (clap, clap) That was a good dress rehearsal. There were a couple of flubbed lines, missed cues and some bad entrances. But we all have got it together this time. Break a leg. Cue the music, tanks, and women with flowers."

Posted January 3, 2007 11:44 AM by Steve Buchheit

3) I teach high school. Some of my students have been saying one of the videos shows the hanging itself was botched -- that Hussein's head was nearly ripped off and his body was hanging by a scrap of flesh. Is this true?

No, it isn't true.

Posted January 3, 2007 11:55 AM by James D. Macdonald

Some thoughts:

I firmly believe that Junior Evil had a live video feed from the execution. If there's a "professional quality" video out there, it's from that feed. The reason to claim that he was already asleep when the execution occured is because even Bush's half-assed PR team realizes that it would look really bad to admit that he was watching.

When Bush starts talking about "sacrifices", what we need to understand is that he's talking about is the kind of sacrifice that the Aztec priests were performing.

And we must remember that the Iraqis were taught the fine points of deathsquad-related-activities by Ambassador Negroponte, who specializes in it.

Posted January 3, 2007 11:57 AM by beth meacham

#12 Bush is not an agent of the Iranian Government.

Because he's an agent of North Korea?

Posted January 3, 2007 11:57 AM by Greg London

*If* the US was not in charge and the decision to rush the execution was made by the Iraqis, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the decision-makers in the Iraqi government want the sectarian violence to get worse, as an excuse for "cracking down" on (eg, murdering) the Sunnis.

I find that to be a far more disturbing thought than the thought that the US screwed up the timing.

Posted January 3, 2007 12:15 PM by Robert West

Gwynne Dyer used to say, speaking about nuclear war, that there's nothing on earth worth blowing the earth up for.

The practical problem with Darth Cheney's probable plan -- to cause such a complete change in government that the existing Iraqi laws forbidding foreign control of oil production were rendered void -- is that it's rapidly approaching the point where there isn't that much oil; no conceivable amount of oil revenue could pay for this.

Bush, Cheney, et al wouldn't care, if they got the oil -- looting the public purse isn't something about which they've got many qualms -- but it's looking more and more likely that they're not going to get the oil.

You want to talk about serious, personal failure? Try "not getting the oil". Consider the range and magnitude of freaking out among people who are, at best, utterly amoral and totally self-centered. Consider who they think failed.

Of course Incurious George is a wee small bit put out.

Posted January 3, 2007 12:30 PM by Graydon

it's looking more and more likely that they're not going to get the oil

Nobody is going to get the oil. The fields are ruined. Have been for a while. This is the oil equivalent of the salinization of the Fertile Crescent.

Posted January 3, 2007 1:08 PM by TomB

He fell asleep reading Camus, natch.

Oh, that's good!

Posted January 3, 2007 1:10 PM by David Dvorkin

TomB --

There's alleged to be a considerable amount of untapped light sweet crude there, somewhere out in the Western Desert. Whether this is delusion, suspicion, or a confirmed reserve I have no idea.

It would be very interesting to have the minutes from those energy strategy meetings VP Cheney held with a number of oil company executives, so we might know which they thought it was.

Posted January 3, 2007 1:22 PM by Graydon

Saddam Hussein's capture, trial, and execution were important enough to spend multiple years planning, killing people for, putting other people at risk for, destroying the infrastructures of at least two countries for, spending billions of dollars on, and eliminating civil liberties in the pursuit of...but not staying up until 9 pm for.

And his PR people thought this made him look better than the alternative.

Posted January 3, 2007 1:26 PM by Aconite

Must of had the same pr guy as his dad.

Just before the bombs began to drop in the PG war...Bush sr was reported to have already gone to bed before the war officially started.

This shocked me as young teen...and I still carry it with me as the height of stupidity today.

No ideas are original.

Posted January 3, 2007 1:51 PM by Michelle

As a certain German philosopher remarked 154 years ago: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

Nuremberg was the ending of one tragedy. The trial and execution of Saddam, it turns out, was a gigantic farce.

Meanwhile, the Emperor Georgius Augustulus is busily trying on different cloaks to cover up his intellectual vacuity and moral nakedness. Last month it was the cloak of Harry Truman (a man who possessed a moral centre, unlike the current Oval One); more recently, it's been Gerald Ford whose dignity W has been talking up.

Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, a brute, a man who had not the least compunction about torturing and murdering his enemies, including people who had made the mistake of marrying into his family. That W was able to ensure that he went to his death like a man, in full possession of his dignity, says nothing about Saddam but a hell of a lot about W.

Posted January 3, 2007 2:07 PM by Fragano Ledgister

Bush is an idiot and coward, but he does regularly go to bed at 9pm or so. It's frequently reported locally, and even the gossip columns comment on how their parties tend to end much earlier than with other presidents.

Posted January 3, 2007 2:27 PM by Marilee

Word is coming out that there has been an arrest regarding this botch -- of the person who took the video. Who says that the Iraqi government has not learned from us? It seems to me that they have the Bush process down cold:

• Announce that everything went perfectly to plan, with carefully edited evidence in support.
• Declare indignantly (when the truth leaks out) that you are shocked, shocked to find out that you were inadvertently in error.
• Vow to get to the bottom of this mess and punish whoever was responsible.
• Instead, concentrate on finding whoever leaked the inconvenient truth.
• Allow the guilty parties to escape punishment (or even identification).
• Pin the blame on an innocent party that you dislike for some reason or other.

Posted January 3, 2007 2:52 PM by Claude Muncey

#14 He fell asleep reading Camus, natch.

And his last thoughts before drifting off: "Mm, yeah, I think I could kill an Arab...Huh? What? Zzzz..."

Posted January 3, 2007 2:56 PM by ethan

While it would be rewarding to the Cheney administration to sell off the Iraqi oil to the highest Western bidder (they have tried at least twice) keeping it in the ground is a very, very close second place. Exxon-Mobil is worth a trillion dollars more than they were in 2001, just due to the increased value of their reserves.

On to Saddam. One is reminded of the recent adage that Bush will screw things up more than you thought possible, even when you allow for the fact that you know he screws everything up. I have no idea what's going to go wrong with the expected "surge", but just thinking about it makes me queasy.

Posted January 3, 2007 2:57 PM by BigHank53

It sounds like the Surge is a done deal.

Remember: If it all goes terribly wrong, it's the Iraqis' fault.

Posted January 3, 2007 3:02 PM by Stefan Jones

Fragano @ 30

the Emperor Georgius Augustulus is busily trying on different cloaks to cover up his intellectual vacuity and moral nakedness

Very well said, although I think vice versa may be slightly more accurate: everyone has seen has intellectualism (or lack thereof), and his moral center is a vacuum.

Posted January 3, 2007 3:05 PM by Pedantic Peasant

Pedantic Peasant #36: I think you're right. Thanks.

Posted January 3, 2007 3:26 PM by Fragano Ledgister

I've read that "surge" was chosen in part to avoid the word "escalation" due to the baggage the latter word has.

That being the case I resolve to use escalation whenever I have cause to discuss the further addition of soldiers to this disaster.

Posted January 3, 2007 3:31 PM by Linkmeister

It's funny 'cause it's twue! Reawwy!

Posted January 3, 2007 3:31 PM by Andy Vance

Remember: If it all goes terribly wrong, it's the Iraqis' fault.

And the Democrats' fault. Especially Bill Clinton.

(Shouldn't you say when it all goes terribly wrong?)

Posted January 3, 2007 3:32 PM by James D. Macdonald

Marilee@31: No matter what your regular routine is, there are some things you stay up for.

I, for example, would stay up late to:
1.) watch any member of the Bush administration on trial at The Hague, or
2.) sit in stupified delight as Joss Whedon, Neil Gaiman, and Teresa played checkers in my living room.

Both of which have about the same probability of happening, but I can always dream.

Posted January 3, 2007 3:33 PM by Aconite

Aconite @ 41 --

Make sure you invite me over in either case.

Posted January 3, 2007 3:49 PM by Claude Muncey

Aconite@41 : It seems more likely that you would find Joss Whedon, Neil Gaiman, and Teresa playing Chinese checkers, that being a game that works with three players. Or maybe even something actually fun, like "Lord of the Fries."

Posted January 3, 2007 3:51 PM by mjfgates

#1 Saddam is dead. George W. Bush has his "mememto," Saddam's pistol, which he keeps in the White house study.

You know, that makes think about the "Scorched Earth" scene from Babylon 5, with President Clark...

Posted January 3, 2007 4:00 PM by Wakboth

Wonderful headline on the front page at the LA Times:
Bush to offer plan to balance budget
Saying that it took only two years to cut deficit in half, president says rest could be gone by 2012.

Delusional, all right. What deficit is he talking about having halved in two years? Where does he think the money will come from to retire it by 2012 (well after he's out of office, you'll have noticed)? The same place he's planning to get all those troops for his 'surge' (which I think is some place upon which he sits)?

Posted January 3, 2007 4:46 PM by P J Evans

Claude Muncey@42: You betcha.

mjfgates@43: But I had to come up with something less likely, like plain checkers, because, you know, The Hague. Personally, I'd pull out my old copy of Pizza Wars, once I got over the happy shock of finding them on my doorstep. Neil would say something funny, and Teresa would topple over, and Joss would write a screenplay about it. And the world would be a better place for it all.

Posted January 3, 2007 5:41 PM by Aconite

Aconite @ 46 --

Excellent. You make the popcorn, I'll bring the beer.

Posted January 3, 2007 6:05 PM by Claude Muncey

Surge?

The logistics are going to be a bitch.

More supplies to move around Iraq, needing more truck convoys and more escorts. The combat units will need their own transport, and I've seen reports that units in the USA are short of equipment just for training. You might be able to get a few more ton-miles out of the logistic system in Iraq, but you can't time-share tanks.

Posted January 3, 2007 6:13 PM by Dave Bell

One line post over at Think Progress:

If we surge and it doesn’t work,it’s hard to imagine what we do after that. — Fredrick Kagan, the “intellectual architect” of the Iraq escalation.

Posted January 3, 2007 6:28 PM by Claude Muncey

Seems to me Bush was always sleeping through executions in Texas, too, so it's not as if he hasn't had plenty of practice. I was wondering, in the aftermath of Saddam's grotesque execution by that gloating death squad, why there wasn't more commentary about George Bush's role the last time he was involved with executions, when he was the Death Penalty Decider for the state of Texas -- in which capacity he had been known to do his own share of gloating. Poking about on the Web, I came across an October 2000 piece about Bush published by Derrick Z. Jackson in the Boston Globe. It seems remarkably prescient now -- especially the title, "Bush's Death Factory."

Posted January 3, 2007 7:09 PM by Madison Guy

Scrabble. And you guys would have to play too.

Posted January 3, 2007 7:43 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Scrabble?

*brightens up*

Posted January 3, 2007 7:45 PM by Susan

I hope someone has been grabbing these "surge" documents from Fred Kagan, AEI, et al. as they're appearing. It looks like it's been evolving fairly rapidly, quite possibly to triangulate the political battle. (In particular, what I recall Fred saying back in Nov and Dec didn't include the word "surge" and he made it clear that he thought troops would have to be there for a long time, that a short-term push wouldn't cut it.)

That idea is not totally gone from the Dec. 17 powerpoint at AEI, but it looks to me like it's been downplayed. The intro now uses "surge", the front of the deck focuses on activities in the next few months, and it isn't until slide 42 that the full troop reckoning is made clear ("substantial increase 30k army and marine units per year for the next 2 years... increases must be permanent."), and I can't find any slides in teh deck with dollar costs for this, or any contingency plans for what we do if things go seriously awry or security isn't as easy as we expect.

The plan that I've seen evolve has always made some awfully optimistic assumptions about what we can and will do.
(Slide 36, for instance, just blithely says "restore essential services [such as] electricity immediately," without further detail, as if this weren't something that we'd been trying to do for the past nearly 4 years wihtout success. And securing Baghdad alone won't do it, as the NYT has made clear-- you have to secure hundreds of miles of power lines going *to* Baghdad, which is a much taller order.)

Now, if you've already decided that all other options other than staying in and finishing the job by yourself are off the table, it's easy to see why you're forced to be wildly optimistic about the all-in strategy. What other choice do you have, given those constraints? (And can you afford to think much about what happens if the "surge" doesn't work? If the Post article referenced in an earlier comment is accurate, then this is something the planners would rather not think about.)

I don't think we can necessarily change the planners' minds on working within that box. But I think we *can* ("we" being the American public and media) push them to be up-front and specific about the costs, risks, success criteria and assessment standard, and contingency plans of their proposal. They might not like having to answer questions along these lines, especially since, spelled out in full, I think it will become clear that they are unacceptable to the majority of the American people. But if you're intellectually honest-- and I believe the Kagans on the report are, even though I have much to disagree with on their proposal and general strategic outlook-- you have to provide some real answers to these sorts of questions if pressed for an answer.

Let's make sure that happens. At the very least, let's make sure that we have a record of what answers have been given, or not given, over time.

Posted January 3, 2007 8:58 PM by John Mark Ockerbloom

Weapons of Mass Destruction finally found near Iraqi boarder!!!!

errr..?

-=Jeff=-

Posted January 3, 2007 9:03 PM by JKRichard

"(Nobody’s buying the line that this was the Iraqi government’s blunder. Everyone figures we had essential control of the situation. They’re right.)"

I'm not quite so sure. Maliki is far from a U.S. puppet. He stopped the search for the two missing soldiers, and if that's not a clearcut example of U.S. impotentence in Iraq I don't know what is. I don't find it too hard to believe that the execution was also done by Maliki behind their backs. The idea that everything, or even anything, that happens in Iraq is subject to U.S. control strikes me a somewhat laughable.

This is especially true given the manner of the execution--it seemed designed for a local audience, not for an international one. Everything about it--the timing, the lynch-mob style--seems meant to thrill the Shiites and enrage the Sunnis. To me this screams of Iraqi control. The only thing the Bush administration is good at is media spin and there's no way in which this makes them look good. I can't even see how watching Saddam executed by a mob of Sadrists would be personally satisfying for Bush.

Possibly the idea for it came from Washington (though I doubt anything so concrete as an order) but the timing and implementation of it were pure Iraqi. I don't see it as an Iraqi blunder, though--rather it was a calculated move on Maliki's part to better position himself in the forthcoming and inevitable civil war.

Posted January 3, 2007 10:59 PM by Heresiarch

Okay, legal experts, help me out: Instead of pulling funding, why can't Congress just rescind the Iraq War Resolution? Can the 110th introduce a resolution withdrawing the approval? This would at least give all of the people who voted for it before a chance to reposition themselves as against the war.

Posted January 4, 2007 12:09 AM by Ragnell

Don't know where I read it today (I had one of my few truly boring days today at work so invaded greater blogistan....) but someone pointed out that all the other presidents by this time in their term (or more often within three years of their term) look like they've aged 20 years in that time. Or more. Bush looks just as crisp and unlined and unburdened as he did when elected.

He's not clever enough to be a vampire. And we can see hiim in the sunlight. Probably he really is Cheney's (et al) meat puppet, consciousless and guiltless as a dumb fsck can be. But a good repeater of speeches and public appearances. More Kabuki theater.

Posted January 4, 2007 12:09 AM by Paula Helm Murray

"(Nobody’s buying the line that this was the Iraqi government’s blunder. Everyone figures we had essential control of the situation. They’re right.)"

I'm not quite so sure. Maliki is far from a U.S. puppet.

The US had physical custody of Saddam. If Bush wanted to stop the execution, all he would have had to do is fly Saddam to some base and say, "Sorry, have a few more questions for him. We'll turn him over later." What could Maliki do about it?

Posted January 4, 2007 12:27 AM by James D. Macdonald

Lydia at #4: The reason that the dignity of the prisoner should be preserved is not for the prisoner's sake. It is so that the actions of the state are clearly contrasted with the actions of the condemned.

And the reason Saddam wasn't allowed any dignity? Because these people are so vicious and vindictive they can't, literally can not, postpone the immediate gratification of cheap revenge in order to promote the long-term success of larger, more important issues. Which is a good thing for the rest of us, I guess, as their avid drooling over the nasty execution details keeps them out of our hair.

Posted January 4, 2007 4:19 AM by Tehanu

Paula @ 57:

someone pointed out that all the other presidents by this time in their term (or more often within three years of their term) look like they've aged 20 years in that time. Or more. Bush looks just as crisp and unlined and unburdened as he did when elected.

Hmmm. It must be the light. Because I see earlier campaign-era photos (that's 2000) and think, well, he may be doing a crappy job, but the White House is aging him.

Hair much grayer. Blotchy face, and generally stressed/peeved/fatigued expression.

Though if you want to make it an actual wrinkle-count, well, I dunno. I'm not looking at high rez fotos.

Then again, the wrinkles I see are an attempt at appearing to be thoughtful, you know, as in capable of rational thought. Oh dear, there I go. I've misunderestimated him again.

Posted January 4, 2007 4:54 AM by Susan Kitchens

Free pumpkin stencil???

Posted January 4, 2007 4:54 AM by ajay detects comment spam

James D. Macdonald @ 40

Remember: If it all goes terribly wrong, it's the Iraqis' fault.

(Shouldn't you say when it all goes terribly wrong?)

Why state the obvious... : )

Aconite @ 41, and others,
Re: The Hague

Yeah, all the obits on Ford reminded me that Nixon got a full pardon. Now admittedly, Ford was from the same party and an appointed VP, bt what are the "real" chances that whoever occupies the Oval next, of whatever party is going to take action against "George and the Pillagers"?

I regretfully expect we'll get the disappointing "America needs time to heal" and "We don't want to further divide the country" speeches, as Bushco(TM) trots happily off to retirement.

On the plus side, however marginal, I have yet to hear anything about Cheney running in '08 -- how often does the VP of a two-term presidency NOT get the party's nod, much less avoid consideration all together?

As far as the escalation/surge goes, it would be wonderful if questions were asked, but find it doubtful, and since the "liberal media" is still owned and operated by the conservative right, I doubt anyone will really stir up the waters.

Ragnell @ 56
As far as Congress stopping the war, IIRC, they have the power only to declare war, without which declaration, we are supposed to be unable to begin military involvment (which, as I understand it, is why we have monuments to "the Korean conflict" not to a war -- it was never approved, and therefore never happenned).

They also have the power to treaties. But -- presumably due to the normally wise-headed injunction against war-by-committee -- they do not have the power to withdraw the declaration or -- I believe -- demand a treaty. That power rests with the Commander-in-Chief.

The Congress (from Article 1, section 8):

Congress shall have the power:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

and The president (from Article 2, section 2):

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

So only the President can make the treaties, i.e. decide when the war is over. "By advice and consent of Congress" is one of those terms people love to debate, but essentially means it's his choice, Congress can ask or demand, but ultimately only he can decide ...

Of course, since Congress passes the budget, it is theoreticaly possible to tie the CiC's hands and force a peace, but then you'd also have to wage a really good PR campaign, because you don't want those headlines of "Congress refuses to protect our troops" or somesuch.

Posted January 4, 2007 8:31 AM by Pedantic Peasant

I suspect the whole execution went off exactly as planned; they wanted Saddam to be ridiculed just before he died, and the hangmen and audience were hand-picked for that end. For God's sake, the hangmen were Shi'as; you don't let the enemies of a condemned man pull the lever unless you want it to be a spectacle. The only kink in their plans was the camera-phone video; they didn't plan on that ruining the official facade. They wanted it both ways--to have Saddam go out in an Old West lynching, and have the public think it was nice and dignified.

Posted January 4, 2007 9:01 AM by j. burke

Please let us also remember that the "surge" in Iraq is Plan B. Plan A was supposed to be going to war with Iran by now.

Posted January 4, 2007 9:34 AM by Kristin

Even if I believed in the death penalty (which I do not), this was so NOT the way to go about it.

Posted January 4, 2007 9:35 AM by Dave Weingart

"surge" is Ministry of Truth speak for "Escalation".

We don't escalate wars, we "surge" them, cause surge sounds cool and sexy.

Posted January 4, 2007 10:21 AM by Greg London

Pedantic Peasant @ 62

But Congress didn't declare war. So there isn't any need for a treaty to end it. It should be possible to either withdraw the resolution, preferably with a 'we were wrong' statement, or pass another resolution annulling it. IMHO.

Posted January 4, 2007 10:38 AM by P J Evans

PJ Evans @ 67

But Congress didn't declare war. So there isn't any need for a treaty to end it. It should be possible to either withdraw the resolution, preferably with a 'we were wrong' statement, or pass another resolution annulling it.

Thanks PJ. I had thought when they voted an authorization, Back in Oct. '02, it was a declaration under a diffrent name. So, I went looking for more:

Addendum -- War Powers Resolution of '73

War Powers Resolution made to update for modern world conditions. President must present report to Congress within 60 days of starting hostilities, then seek approval. If he gets an authorization, all is well, it's as good as war, if not, then he must call the troops home.

The text:

Section 4,c:

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

Section 5, b & c

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

Section 8, d

Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or (2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

So again, legalese is not my thing, and I'm no Constitutional scholar, but it would seem on the surface that the 2002 resolution serves as well as a declaration.

Mind, there is a codicil that no one is certain the Powers clause is Constitutional as it's never been tested. Likewise given the tap-dancing and hand-waving that accompanied the mendacious Iraq presentation, I wonder if one could argue the resolution was obtained falsely and thereby invalid.

But the bottom line is: the first step is to invalidate the resolution, then to get out.

Posted January 4, 2007 11:35 AM by Pedantic Peasant

Pedantic, your conclusion fits mine just fine: Out as soon as possible, and no escalation under whatever name. (And while we're at it, I wnat to arrange for Jenna and not-Jenna to get recruiting literature from every branch possible, as frequently as possible.)

Posted January 4, 2007 11:46 AM by P J Evans

I keep imagining a Dysfunctional Family Circus caption: "Extreme escalation! SURGE!!"

Posted January 4, 2007 11:53 AM by Kip W

Georgie-Porgie isn't sorry the execution was a freak show -- he's sorry that the video got out.

"The president is focused on the new way forward in Iraq so these issues are best addressed out of Iraq, out of Baghdad," deputy White House press secretary Scott Stanzel said. "Prime Minister Maliki's staff have already expressed their disappointment in the filmings, so I guess we'll leave it at that."

Posted January 4, 2007 12:10 PM by James D. Macdonald

Maliki isn't a puppet. In Sandy Levinson's analysis, he's a wind-up toy:

I've never forgotten a discussion of the Vietnam War, in which I (or someone else) referred to the "puppet" government in South Vietnam. Barney [Frank]'s immediate response was that it was not a "puppet," which can be controlled by a puppeteer, but, rather, a "wind-up toy," which, when placed down on a floor or a table, may have gotten its initial energy from the person doing the winding, but then has an independent capacity to run into walls or fall off the table. I was reminded, not for the first time, of this analogy when reading the remarkable story by John Burns and Marc Santora indicating that "U.S. Questioned Iraq on the Rush to Hang Hussein." This was a predictable disaster with regard to winning the hearts and minds of anyone other than Shi'ites who are establishing an ever-increasing sectarian control of Iraq, yet the US supinely turned over Saddam Hussein, just as many white sheriffs in the past turned over prisoners, at least some of whom were guilty, to the lynch mob.

The Bush Administration has achieved what is perhaps the worst of all worlds in Iraq, having wound up an Iraqi government that it is incapable of influencing on anything so basic as the inadvisability of executing the deposed president on the eve of the most sacred Islamic holiday while being taunted by persons described by John Burns as Shi'ite thugs.

Posted January 4, 2007 12:27 PM by theophylact

#58-59:

You guys seem to be assuming that the Bush administration has some great competence and control over what's going on in Iraq, and that they've used that to intentionally botch Saddam's hanging. What evidence do you have for any of that? I mean, from the limited information I can find, it looks like we have lost control over most of what goes on in Iraq, that our tame Iraqi government is about as happy to screw us as every other Iraqi faction, and that very few of our grand plans go the way we expect. It seems much more plausible to me that the hanging was Bush and company's best attempt at seeing justice done in a humane way, planned by the guys who are still sure that the Iraqis will be bringing us candy and flowers any day now.

Similarly, if Bush and company are planning to manipulate the world oil market to make themselves rich (this sounds pretty silly to me), what makes anyone here suspect them of enough competence to succeed?

Posted January 4, 2007 12:40 PM by albatross

#62 Pedantic Peasant:

The problem is, while Bush has been a disaster as a president, we don't want to establish the pattern of having things go all wrong in your time in office leading to some kind of revenge or persecution when your party loses power. That sort of pattern creates some really ugly incentives to stay in power at all costs.

Impeaching him would make far more sense, since this might result in more competent leadership. But prosecuting him for anything short of absolutely rock-solid evidence of crime after he leaves office will look exactly like payback by his political enemies. The next failed president will remember the lesson, and we won't like how he applies it to his own decisions.

Posted January 4, 2007 12:47 PM by albatross

On one hand, if the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" means anything at all, Bush has committed them, and continues to commit them, giving us impeachment as the correct response.

On the other hand, impeachment would turn into a real black hole, sucking all the energy out of everything else, and at this moment we need to expend our energies on fixing what's wrong. The problems won't go away while our attention is distracted by an impeachment.

When the captain has run the ship on the rocks the first priority is patching the holes, not courtmartialling the stupid SOB.

Posted January 4, 2007 12:58 PM by James D. Macdonald

Probably not OT: Harriet Miers just resigned.

Posted January 4, 2007 1:06 PM by Jon Meltzer

James Macdonald, re #58: you are right that the US could have flown Saddam off and refused to release him. But, I suspect, to do so would have resulted in exposing the Us relationship with the Iraqi government as a colonial one, and demonstrating that -- whatever we say -- the Iraqi government is not sovereign and has no power except that which we choose to grant it. The Shiite population would have lost whatever faith it still has in the government.

One of the facets of the mess we've created in Iraq is that almost any action we take in that country is now going to irritate someone, and be used by the people so irritated as proof of the proposition that the government is against them, meaningless, or both. Spiriting Saddam off would simply have upset a different part of the population ... and undermined the legitimacy of the government which we are (vainly, I suspect) trying to prop up.

Posted January 4, 2007 1:20 PM by aphrael

Albatross @ 74:

A disaster is something that happens unintentionally. Bush has not been a disaster. He has willfully and intentionally led the U.S. into Iraq on pretexts, half-truths, innuendos, and outright falsehoods. Likewise, he and his cohorts have abrogated or ignored any aspects of law they wished. Or at least, that they thought they could get away with.

Your argument that

prosecuting him for anything short of absolutely rock-solid evidence of crime after he leaves office will look exactly like payback by his political enemies. The next failed president will remember the lesson, and we won't like how he applies it to his own decisions.

certainly makes sense, but

1) My lament is that I am very much afraid that any form of repercussions -- including censure or impeachment -- will be ignored in favor of a pardon.

2) That this administration either
a) is relying on this eventuality; or
b) is completely convinced in its own righteousness;
and either way, needs to be shown it is/was wrong.

3) If there are no consequences for Bush's gross misconduct and abuse of power, then the next greedy, dishonest, self-serving, imperialistic president will remember the lesson, and we won't like how he applies it to his own decisions.

I completely agree with James D. Macdonald @ 75, that the reality of the situation is such that we will need to settle for fixing the ship and let Bush and his crew escape in their little lifeboat while we do.

My one real comfort is imagining how history will define this administration, and the small, doubtful hope that Bush does (or will) care, and that it will bother him.

Posted January 4, 2007 1:51 PM by Pedantic Peasant

Here's another take on sacrifice that's maybe a little more appropriate to our current situation...

Posted January 4, 2007 2:06 PM by Naomi Kritzer

Some of the legal eagles over at firedoglake have pointed out that, having been pardoned, guys like Libby couldn't invoke the 5th amendment to avoid testimony in later legal actions involving the stuff for which they were pardoned.

Posted January 4, 2007 2:10 PM by P J Evans

I'm not sure that it is all that significant whether or not Shrub saw the execution the same night.

What I find far more scary is that NPR reported, last night when I was driving home from work, that his people are saying that he still hasn't seen it.

Catching the news the next morning is no big deal. Not having followed the news almost a week later is deliberate ignorance. The president not seeing international news is a refusal to do his job.

Posted January 4, 2007 2:10 PM by Ursula L

Nah, we don't want a sacrifice ...

One sacrifices the good, noble king to save and restore the land. Odds are if we were to sacrifice fearless leader here, inside a year we'd end up with famine in the heartland, recession on Wall Street, and an invasion by Canada.

Posted January 4, 2007 2:15 PM by Pedantic Peasant

PJ Evans @ 80

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but that doesn't sound right. AIUI, if you are pardoned, then you are cleared and cannot be (found) guilty, and so he cannot be tried at least on criminal charges.

Now maybe he'd still be open to a civil suit, but that's a different kettle of fish ...

Ursula L @ 81

No, it's consistent, internally anyway.

He knows what his job is, has already made up his mind, and doesn't need to be distracted by any inconvenient little facts.

Pretty much his thinking is:

"My job, kill Saddam." and
*Mission accomplished; two thumbs up*

Hows and whys don't matter -- he's "a man of action"

Posted January 4, 2007 2:24 PM by Pedantic Peasant

Pedantic @ 83:
I think civil suit is the general idea. Think the Wilsons and Libby. It almost - but only almost - makes you hope that Scooter gets pardoned, so he has to answer the questions in the civil suit, or be in really deep something-or-other. (Me, I really want him found guilty and thrown in jail. Then make him answer questions while wearing orange.)

Posted January 4, 2007 2:41 PM by P J Evans

#84: More importantly, anyone who is pardoned can't refuse on 5th Amendment grounds to testify against anyone else. Since they can't be incriminated, they have no fear of self-incrimination, at least for the crimes covered by the pardon. It's the same principle as grants of immunity, but arrived at by a different mechanism.

Posted January 4, 2007 3:07 PM by Xopher

#83 -

Sure, it's consistant - if he'd seen the execution that night, he couldn't have still not seen it by last night.

And since we know Shrub, we see the problem right away.

But if, say, Clinton hand not seen footage of a news event the night it happened, no one would stress, because we'd know he'd catch up with the news in the morning.

Not seeing something as it happened is not a big deal. Routinely not knowing the news days later is a big deal.

Posted January 4, 2007 3:13 PM by Ursula L

Albatross: Similarly, if Bush and company are planning to manipulate the world oil market to make themselves rich (this sounds pretty silly to me), what makes anyone here suspect them of enough competence to succeed?

For one thing, it's not just manipulating the oil market, though that is a big part of it (look how very much more wealthy the oil people are now than they were when Bush took office), it's direct war profiteering through Halliburton, etc. Probably lots of things we don't know about. And why does it sound silly?

As for competence? Every action they've taken, even (especially) those that seemed like blunders, have served to get us more and more entrenched in a state of eternal war. They were competent enough to convince almost everyone that we needed to attack Iraq, and they were competent enough to stay popular despite everything long enough to get us embroiled to the point where it's impossible to see a way out.

Posted January 4, 2007 3:32 PM by ethan

When the captain has run the ship on the rocks the first priority is patching the holes, not courtmartialling the stupid SOB.

That makes sense. But could we at least post a guard or two on him to have him arrested as soon as the ship is in port?

21 January, 2009, Bush should be in the brig. Along with Cheney. And Rumsfeld should be there long before then.

Posted January 4, 2007 4:14 PM by Greg London

According to a diary on DKos, Bush is now asserting in a signing statement attached to a postal reform bill that he has the right to open domestic mail, sans warrant.

Posted January 4, 2007 4:53 PM by Lizzy L

Lizzy in #89: just in case we thought that the war was won. If Congress doesn't act against such egregious breaches of the constitution, can we really say we are a democracy? I wish that, at least, someone would put forth a bill of censure. And...just whose mail does the Administration want to open, anyway? It is not like e-mail, where the NSA can build a giant information vacuum. Or maybe it is; I suppose that standard size letters could be automatically opened and scanned.

Posted January 4, 2007 5:09 PM by Randolph Fritz

In David Simon's nonfiction Homicide book (the same one that the TV series was based upon), the detectives had a rule of thumb -- if a suspect fell asleep waiting to be questioned, he was much more likely to be guilty. It was more than just innocent people being more worried because they knew they were innocent, the kinds of people that commit crimes often have a fundamental belief that they'll get away with it that leads them to be relaxed when they shouldn't.

So Bush sleeping through the news of Hussein's execution might well be a cousin of the above.

Posted January 4, 2007 5:22 PM by Connie H.

#85 More importantly, anyone who is pardoned can't refuse on 5th Amendment grounds to testify against anyone else. Since they can't be incriminated, they have no fear of self-incrimination, at least for the crimes covered by the pardon.

It makes sense that the same principle that applies in grants of immunity would apply to pardons, but is there precedent for this interpretation (or does it otherwise have established standing in law)?

Posted January 4, 2007 6:43 PM by Zed

Tehanu @ 59:

And the reason Saddam wasn't allowed any dignity? Because these people are so vicious and vindictive they can't, literally can not, postpone the immediate gratification of cheap revenge in order to promote the long-term success of larger, more important issues. Which is a good thing for the rest of us, I guess, as their avid drooling over the nasty execution details keeps them out of our hair.

I'm not buying the "these people are so vicious and vindictive" argument. Which people, the Americans, or the Iraquis? Maybe I put too much faith in the power of power, but I'm finding it unlikely that either government did it solely out of spite. Bile they have a-plenty, but if it was spectacle they wanted, why wasn't it in a public square? Why did they make a vid of it that attempted to make it look proper and dignified. What I want to know is whose political axe was being sharpened.

Why the hurry? All of a sudden, the man must be executed at a religiously significant time? Why not wait out the 30 days, why frantically rush around, finding loopholes from the law? Wouldn't the Iraqi government have a better handle on what would and wouldn't cause his death to become a martyrdom? What the heck is it with the Muqtada sympathizers given the right to hang him? What political hay does that make? Which bits of the story are true and which aren't?

The execution was carried out in a shameful fashion, but I continue to wonder why. It's not as if execution isn't a solved problem, so to speak. It seems unlikely that the spectacle was simply the result of bungling.

Posted January 4, 2007 6:46 PM by Lydia Nickerson

Maybe it's because I've been reading up on Stuart and Georgian England for way too long, but reports of Saddam's demeanour brought to mind the public executions where Jack Ketch was hooded and the condemned man made a defiant speech before being hanged. It only needed ballad sellers hawking broadsheets of his career and alleged last words.
-Barbara

Posted January 4, 2007 10:32 PM by Barbara Gordon

Re the surge: Best RumInt I'm getting (from the Army side of the house) is a "bump" (why this term, when a surge is a motion, a swell, and a bump is an immobile thing...) of, at most, 20,000.

Where they think they are getting three brigades, I don't know.

As far as the ability to stop the war goes; I recall someone explaining that Bush had failed to meet the actual requirements of the resolution, instead waving around the (legally meaningless) predicate language.

If correct he has no actual authority to stop them from pulling the plug, as he was in violation of the law when he sent them.

Posted January 4, 2007 11:04 PM by Terry Karney

I really like this headline from Reuters: "Bush voices regrets on handling of Saddam hanging".

"Voices regrets". About as close as a mainstream headline writer can get to saying that he's making unfelt mouth noises without actually, y'know, saying it.

Posted January 4, 2007 11:08 PM by Avram

Jim@#75: When the captain has run the ship on the rocks the first priority is patching the holes, not courtmartialling the stupid SOB.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the first priority is relieving the SOB of command if he continues to be derelict in his duty.

Restated: a stopped clock may be right twice a day, but first it has to stop. Or be stopped.

Posted January 5, 2007 1:37 AM by Glenn Hauman

I dunno. When Bush starts talking about the nation needing to "sacrifice", all I can think of is this.

(It's not actually the best link I can find -- the current rhetoric reminds me more of the rhetoric about the populace of Japan needing to be prepared to make the "ultimate sacrifice", which John Dower talks about in Embracing Defeat. It's a fascinating and scary book which feels all too relevant to our current situation.)

Posted January 5, 2007 1:47 AM by Kevin Riggle

theophlyact at #72: "Maliki isn't a puppet. In Sandy Levinson's analysis, he's a wind-up toy:"

That's just mildly insulting, isn't it? As if deprived of U.S. guidance they'll topple haplessly off the table edge. Why is it so hard to allow Maliki or other Iraqis the privilege of self-motivation? They aren't wind-up toys or puppets--they're human beings, with their own concerns and ambitions. When they betray U.S. interests, it does not necessarily follow that it is because of incompetence or carelessness. Perhaps they are simply competently and carefully watching after their own interests.

Civil war is not happening in Iraq because they just can't help themselves. It is happening because there are large numbers of people who want it to happen and are actively working towards it. Is Maliki one of them? The evidence is far from reassuring.

Albatross at #73: Agreed. Why assume that this is an utter botch of Bush's when it works so much better as a political ploy of Maliki's?* Why would Bush (a) allow Sadrists, of all people, to execute Saddam or (b) do it on the eve of a Sunni religious holiday? He hates Sadr and doesn't give a damn about the Sunnis. Yet both make sense if the execution is thought to be Maliki's doing.

*Which is not to say that this scenario is anything other than another type of botch.

Posted January 5, 2007 4:13 AM by Heresiarch

#93 ::: Lydia Nickerson ::: (view all by) ::: January 04, 2007, 06:46 PM:

Tehanu @ 59:

And the reason Saddam wasn't allowed any dignity? Because these people are so vicious and vindictive they can't, literally can not, postpone the immediate gratification of cheap revenge ....

I'm not buying the "these people are so vicious and vindictive" argument. Which people, the Americans, or the Iraquis?

Uh ... I guess I meant the Americans...actually, well, Bush and Cheney. Your response was a lot more thoughtful than my remarks -- not that I'm retracting them or anything, just wishing I'd made myself a bit clearer.

Posted January 5, 2007 4:49 AM by Tehanu

Lydia Nickerson @ 89: Time to start encrypting one's mail, then. I wonder if Enigma is enough to stop the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, or if one needs to dust off one's copy of GPG. (I did a little digging, and apparently Enigma can be had in software. (Unix))

Posted January 5, 2007 7:14 AM by Stephan Brun

Damn, don't know how that happened, but I mistook Lizzy L for Lydia N. Sorry...

Posted January 5, 2007 7:20 AM by Stephan Brun

Saddam's execution was a carefully calculated gesture by the Iraqi government, the Shia sect who carefully courted and seduced the American government to get themselves installed when they had neither the balls nor the ability to supplant Saddam's regime themselves. The gesture is directed to every Sunni (and a good few Shia who are not members of their tribe, plus what are left of the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds) It is a thumb drawn slowly across the throat. The protector of the Sunnis can no longer protect them. They, each and every one of them, are next. The Maliki regime cannot stop the majority of the killings because they are doing the killing. It is payback time and it is worth remembering that these guys have thousands of years of practice at blood soaked payback.

Maliki is not a puppet. The puppet here is George Walker Bush. Maliki is no more shocked and awed by the US than his neighbour. He and his hold America in no more than contempt, a tool that was useful and can now be disgregarded as an irrelevance in what he has planned - and what he has planned is genocide.

Of course, he's not the only one there with that on his mind, which is what makes the situation so much fun, fun, fun (if your name is Beelzebub)

Posted January 5, 2007 7:52 AM by Martyn Taylor

Martyn Taylor @ 103

All correct...

When will the US learn to just stay the Hell out?

The Iran hostage situation was precipitated by our assistance and support to a leader the Iranians didn't want, and helping said leader circumvent the country's elections ...

Osama is one of the people we trained to be a resistance fighter to keep the Russians out of Afghanistan ...

Now Iraq, where we have replaced a stable government with Civil War and are again breeding hatred with our interference in their culture.

The big problem IMHO is that when America in general and Bush in particular say "democracy" they seem to think "western culture." There seems to be an assumption that if they are "properly trained" in democracy then their culture will suddenly change.

Given the fact of the ever-growing divide at home between "red states" and "blue states" I find it stunning that people think democracy overseas will be less contentious and somehow bring our cultures closer.

Democracy means letting the people govern. While this is laudable it is important not to forget that the French Revolution was also democratic, and that if what "the people" want is bloodshed, a democracy will hasten, not prevent, the problem. Likewise, while helping other countries develop into democracies may be a good idea in theory, helping give power to a group that thinks you'd be better off dead is ultimately self-destructive.

Posted January 5, 2007 8:22 AM by Pedantic Peasant

When the captain has run the ship on the rocks the first priority is patching the holes, not courtmartialling the stupid SOB.

No. If the CO has run you aground *and* continues to drive the ship onto the rocks, you relieve him, save the ship, and then take it to the courts. If you are right, you'll win. If not, you've just copped to mutiny. If he won't be relieved, you relieve him anyway -- even if that means detailing him to sweep the seabed.

If you refuse to do anything -- if you keep the madman in charge, you are just as responsible for the loss of the ship and crew.

Saving the ship is fine if the CO is working to do the same. When the CO is the one sinking the ship, step one is to stop him, because as long as he's giving orders, you are not going to save the ship.

This is the XO's nightmare -- but this is also the reason we have XOs.

Since we can't do that, we have a real problem. The courts won't stop Bush. Congress refuses to try -- one of Pelosi's first mistakes was "Impeachment is off the table."

If Bush can't get his way through Congress, he'll just make an executive order and do it anyway. If Congress refuses to impeach when he does that, *he wins*.

So, guess what. We're getting two years of something scarier than Cocky Bush. We're getting Threatened Bush.

I wonder how many cities are going to die because of this.

Posted January 5, 2007 9:09 AM by Erik V. Olson

Where they think they are getting three brigades, I don't know.

I suppose we could pull ALL our troops out of Afghanistan, send them to Iraq, and then lose both countries.

Half a step forward, six flights of stairs back.

Wheee!

;/

Posted January 5, 2007 9:31 AM by Greg London

Erik @ 105

When the captain has run the ship on the rocks the first priority is patching the holes, not courtmartialling the stupid SOB.

No. If the CO has run you aground *and* continues to drive the ship onto the rocks, you relieve him, save the ship, and then take it to the courts. If you are right, you'll win. If not, you've just copped to mutiny. If he won't be relieved, you relieve him anyway -- even if that means detailing him to sweep the seabed.

If you refuse to do anything -- if you keep the madman in charge, you are just as responsible for the loss of the ship and crew.

Saving the ship is fine if the CO is working to do the same. When the CO is the one sinking the ship, step one is to stop him, because as long as he's giving orders, you are not going to save the ship.

Excellent analogy. Cogently argued!

Posted January 5, 2007 9:35 AM by Pedantic Peasant

I'm with albatross in comment 73:

Accepting Bush asleep at 9pm requires no stretch of the imagination, and demands no framework of hypothetical GWB staff lies, or critics' conspiracy theorizing, to account for it: the current administration is rife with incompetence and its putative head is lazy, self-centered, and largely irrelevant to the core decision-making processes (come one, we've known this last part since GWB's non-participation in the events of Sept. 11, 2001).

I can't imagine anyone doubting GWB prioritizing his immediate personal comfort or desires over the nation's interest -- he indulges his own schedule and pastimes all the time, and falling asleep early when something big is about to go down is entirely in character.

Posted January 5, 2007 10:24 AM by Ron Henry

I think this post is very smartly written. I heard yesterda